Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Proving and Presenting Genocide: Rational Reconstruction in ICJ Applications

Roschat, Olof LU (2024) LAGF03 20242
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
This essay examines two ongoing genocide cases at the ICJ, The Gambia v. Myanmar and South Africa v. Israel. It uses the method of rational reconstruc-tion to examine their utterances in relation to claims of genocide, how each application expresses itself, and how they frame the countries obligations to-wards both the genocide convention and the UN. Neither The Gambia or South Africa have any involvement in the genocides that are allegingly taking place, and are non-involved states. The Gambia takes a more expected role of a non-involved state, primarily reporting the findings of the UN Fact-Finding Mission and making few direct claims, instead supporting claims from various other organizations that have examined the conflict. They... (More)
This essay examines two ongoing genocide cases at the ICJ, The Gambia v. Myanmar and South Africa v. Israel. It uses the method of rational reconstruc-tion to examine their utterances in relation to claims of genocide, how each application expresses itself, and how they frame the countries obligations to-wards both the genocide convention and the UN. Neither The Gambia or South Africa have any involvement in the genocides that are allegingly taking place, and are non-involved states. The Gambia takes a more expected role of a non-involved state, primarily reporting the findings of the UN Fact-Finding Mission and making few direct claims, instead supporting claims from various other organizations that have examined the conflict. They motivate their application that they are acting erga omnes partes to hold Myanmar accountable for violations against the genocide convention. South Africa is also a non-involved state but frames themselves and their claims more centrally in their application. While they also frequently cite UN findings, they present this as their own claims and motivate it with evidence gathered by the UN. They also present themselves as having a moral duty to make this application and hold Israel accountable for violations against the genocide convention. Their utterances are presented partially as an involved state, rather than a purely non-involved third-party state. This suggests that there is a bridging between how states involve themselves in conflicts as involved and non-involved actors, and how the ICJ is used dif-ferently by these groups to present their disputes. The essay further briefly questions the efficiency of UN organs encouraging states to make applica-tions to the ICJ and considers potential upsides and downsides of allowing UN organs more direct access to the ICJ rather than having to act “through” a state. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Den här uppsatsen undersöker två pågående folkmordsfall vid ICJ, Gambia v. Myanmar och Sydafrika v. Israel. Uppsatsen använder metoden rationell rekonstruktion för att undersöka deras yttranden i relation till påståenden om folkmord, hur varje ansökan uttrycker sig och hur de utformar ländernas skyl-digheter gentemot både folkmordskonventionen och FN. Varken Gambia el-ler Sydafrika har någon inblandning i de folkmord som de påstår att de äger rum, och är icke-involverade stater. Gambia tar en mer förväntad roll som icke-involverad stat, och rapporterar i första hand resultaten av FN:s faktainsamlingsuppdrag och gör få direkta på-ståenden. I stället stödjer Gambia påståenden från olika andra organisationer som har undersökt konflikten. De... (More)
Den här uppsatsen undersöker två pågående folkmordsfall vid ICJ, Gambia v. Myanmar och Sydafrika v. Israel. Uppsatsen använder metoden rationell rekonstruktion för att undersöka deras yttranden i relation till påståenden om folkmord, hur varje ansökan uttrycker sig och hur de utformar ländernas skyl-digheter gentemot både folkmordskonventionen och FN. Varken Gambia el-ler Sydafrika har någon inblandning i de folkmord som de påstår att de äger rum, och är icke-involverade stater. Gambia tar en mer förväntad roll som icke-involverad stat, och rapporterar i första hand resultaten av FN:s faktainsamlingsuppdrag och gör få direkta på-ståenden. I stället stödjer Gambia påståenden från olika andra organisationer som har undersökt konflikten. De motiverar sin ansökan med att de agerar erga omnes partes för att hålla Myanmar ansvarigt för brott mot folkmords-konventionen. Sydafrika är också en icke-involverad stat, men presenterar sig själva och sina anspråk mer centralt i sin ansökan. Även om de också ofta citerar FN-under-sökningar presenterar de detta som sina egna påståenden och motiverar det med bevis som samlats in av FN. De framställer också att de har en moralisk plikt att göra denna ansökan och hålla Israel ansvarigt för kränkningar av folkmordskonventionen. Yttrandena presenteras delvis som en involverad stat, snarare än en rent icke-involverad tredje parts stat. Uppsatsen kommer fram till att det finns en överbryggning mellan hur stater involverar sig i konflikter som inblandade och icke-involverade aktörer, och hur ICJ används olika av dessa aktörer för att presentera sina tvister. Uppsat-sen ifrågasätter vidare kortfattat effektiviteten hos FN-organ som uppmuntrar stater att göra ansökningar till ICJ, och överväger potentiella för- och nack-delar med att ge FN-organ mer direkt tillgång till ICJ snarare än att behöva agera "genom" en stat. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Roschat, Olof LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20242
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Folkrätt, Public International Law, Folkmord, Genocide, Rational Reconstruction, Rationell Rekonstruktion, ICJ
language
English
id
9179982
date added to LUP
2025-03-20 14:19:06
date last changed
2025-03-20 14:19:06
@misc{9179982,
  abstract     = {{This essay examines two ongoing genocide cases at the ICJ, The Gambia v. Myanmar and South Africa v. Israel. It uses the method of rational reconstruc-tion to examine their utterances in relation to claims of genocide, how each application expresses itself, and how they frame the countries obligations to-wards both the genocide convention and the UN. Neither The Gambia or South Africa have any involvement in the genocides that are allegingly taking place, and are non-involved states. The Gambia takes a more expected role of a non-involved state, primarily reporting the findings of the UN Fact-Finding Mission and making few direct claims, instead supporting claims from various other organizations that have examined the conflict. They motivate their application that they are acting erga omnes partes to hold Myanmar accountable for violations against the genocide convention. South Africa is also a non-involved state but frames themselves and their claims more centrally in their application. While they also frequently cite UN findings, they present this as their own claims and motivate it with evidence gathered by the UN. They also present themselves as having a moral duty to make this application and hold Israel accountable for violations against the genocide convention. Their utterances are presented partially as an involved state, rather than a purely non-involved third-party state. This suggests that there is a bridging between how states involve themselves in conflicts as involved and non-involved actors, and how the ICJ is used dif-ferently by these groups to present their disputes. The essay further briefly questions the efficiency of UN organs encouraging states to make applica-tions to the ICJ and considers potential upsides and downsides of allowing UN organs more direct access to the ICJ rather than having to act “through” a state.}},
  author       = {{Roschat, Olof}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Proving and Presenting Genocide: Rational Reconstruction in ICJ Applications}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}